Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6 v4 4/5] sctp: Add ASCONF operation on the single-homed host

[Wei Yongjun <yjwei@cn.fujitsu.com>]

> Hi, 
>
> Such operation would not be supported by specification, in Sec.5.3 in RFC 5061:
>    F1)  When adding an IP address to an association, the IP address is
>         NOT considered fully added to the association until the ASCONF-
>         ACK arrives.  This means that until such time as the ASCONF
>         containing the add is acknowledged, the sender MUST NOT use the
>         new IP address as a source for ANY SCTP packet except on
>         carrying an ASCONF Chunk. 
>
> I think this means we cannot send ASCONF-ACK from the new address even if it bundles ASCONF...

If so, both side do not have valid address to send the such
ASCONF-ACK, and can not recv ASCONF-ACK.

> - Michio
>
> On Apr 25, 2011, at 9:57 , Wei Yongjun wrote:
>
>>> On Apr 22, 2011, at 13:10 , Wei Yongjun wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Since the sender MUST NOT use the  new IP address as a source for ANY SCTP
>>>>> packet except on  carrying an ASCONF Chunk. And ASCONF chunk can be bundled.
>>>>> How about this change. If so, you do not need change to sctp_outq_tail();
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/net/sctp/outqueue.c b/net/sctp/outqueue.c
>>>>> index 1c88c89..bd6cc9c 100644
>>>>> --- a/net/sctp/outqueue.c
>>>>> +++ b/net/sctp/outqueue.c
>>>>> @@ -754,6 +754,13 @@ static int sctp_outq_flush(struct sctp_outq *q, int rtx_timeout)
>>>>> 	 */
>>>>>
>>>>> 	list_for_each_entry_safe(chunk, tmp, &q->control_chunk_list, list) {
>>>>> +		/* RFC 5061, 5.3
>>>>> +		 * F1) This ...
>>>>> +		 */
>>>>> +		if (q->asoc->src_out_of_asoc_ok &&
>>>>> +		    chunk->chunk_hdr->type != SCTP_CID_ASCONF)
>>>> SCTP_CID_ASCONF_ACK should be also allowed, the peer may
>>>> send ASCONF to do the same thing at the same time.
>>> Sorry for my bad understanding, 
>>> Do you mean the situation: "the peer (ASCONF receiver) may send ASCONF-ACK to the unconfirmed destination"?
>>> Or do you mean following situation?
>>> 1. the pear sends ADD/DEL ASCONF to me, 
>>> 2. I receive it, 
>>> 3. I migrate to the other network and get new address, 
>>> 4. I send ASCONF-ACK to the peer from the new address
>> Yes, If both side send ADD/DEL ASCONF to del the last one
>> address at the same time like this:
>>
>> ASCONF  -----    ------ASCONF
>> (ADD/DEL)    \  /     (ADD/DEL)
>>              \/        
>>              /\
>>        <----/  \----->
>> ASCONF-ACK---\  /------ASCONF-ACK
>>              \/
>>              /\
>>        <----/  \----->
>>
>> But I do not test for it. Not sure we need to do this, can you
>> check this before commit your new patchset?
>>
>>
>>>>> +			continue;
>>>>> +
>>>>> 		list_del_init(&chunk->list);
>>>>>
>>>>> 		/* Pick the right transport to use. */
>>>>> @@ -881,6 +888,9 @@ static int sctp_outq_flush(struct sctp_outq *q, int rtx_timeout)
>>>>> 		}
>>>>> 	}
>>>>>
>>>>> +	if (q->asoc->src_out_of_asoc_ok)
>>>>> +		goto sctp_flush_out;
>>>>> +
>>>>> 	/* Is it OK to send data chunks?  */
>>>>> 	switch (asoc->state) {
>>>>> 	case SCTP_STATE_COOKIE_ECHOED:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
>>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>>>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>> --
>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>